The case of Pfc. Bradley
Manning raises legal issues about his pre-trial detention, freedom of
speech and the press, and proving his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Putting aside Manning’s guilt or innocence, if Bradley Manning
saw the Afghan and Iraq war diaries as well as the diplomatic cables
published by WikiLeaks, what should he have done? And what should be
the proper response of government to their publication?

A high point in the application
of the rule of law to war came in the Nuremberg trials, when leaders
in Germany were held accountable for World War II atrocities. Justice
Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg
trials while on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court, said, “If certain
acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the
United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not
prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which
we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

One of the key outcomes of
the Nuremberg trials was that people who commit war crimes or crimes
against humanity will be held accountable even if they were following
orders. This is known as Nuremberg
Principle IV, which
states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government
or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” The Nuremberg
principles were enshrined in a series of treaties.

How do the Nuremberg principles
and other laws of war apply to Bradley Manning?

What is a person who does not
want to participate in war crimes or hiding war crimes supposed to do
when he sees evidence of them? If Manning hid the evidence, would he
not be complicit in the crimes he was covering up and potentially liable
as a co-conspirator? These were questions that Bradley Manning allegedly
wrestled with. According to unverified chat logs, Manning,
talking with Adrian Lamo via email,
asked: “Hypothetical
question, if you had free reign [sic] over classified networks for long periods
of time… say, 8-9 months… and you saw incredible things, awful things…
things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored
in a dark room in Washington, D.C.… what would you do?”

In Iraq, Manning was ordered “to round up and hand over Iraqi
civilians to America’s new Iraqi allies, who he could see were then
torturing them with electrical drills and other implements.” Manning
questioned the orders he was being given to help round up Iraqis and brought his concerns
to the chain of command.
He pointed to a specific instance in which 15 detainees were arrested and
tortured for printing “anti-Iraqi literature.” He found that the
paper in question was merely a scholarly critique of corruption in the
government, asking, “Where did the money go?” He brought this to his
commander, who told him to “shut up” and keep working to find more
detainees. Manning
realized he “was
actively involved in something that I was completely against.”

He wrestled with the question
of what to do. According to the unverified chat logs with Lamo, Manning
told Lamo that
he hoped the publication of the documents and videos would spur “worldwide
discussion, debates, and reform.” He went on to say, “I want
people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without
information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”
The command structure would not listen, so Manning went beyond them
to the people who are supposed to control the military in our democratic
republic. He wanted Americans to know the truth.

In the chat logs, Lamo asked
Manning why he did not sell the documents to a foreign power.
Manning realized he could have made a lot of money doing so, but he
did not take that path. He explained: “It belongs in the public domain – information should be free – it belongs in the public domain – because
another state would just take advantage of the information… try and
get some edge – if its out in the open… it should be a public good.”
These are not the words of a traitor, of someone out to hurt the United
States; these are the words of someone trying to improve the United
States, trying to get the country to live up to its highest ideals.

Manning is charged so far with
three counts of unlawfully transferring confidential material to a non-secure
computer, i.e., leaking state secrets. Manning faces up to 52 years
if convicted of these crimes, and it is likely that he will be charged
with additional offenses. The charges
against Manning end stating
that Manning’s “conduct [is] prejudicial to good order and discipline
in the armed forces and [is] of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces.”

Well, what exactly did the
materials Manning allegedly leak show?

The video that is the focus
of these initial charges is known as “Collateral
Murder.” The
video shows American soldiers in an Apache helicopter gunning down a
group of innocent men, including two Reuters employees, a photojournalist
and his driver, killing 16 and sending two children to the hospital.
The video, which has been viewed by millions, shows initial blasts at
the group killing and wounding people. U.S. forces watch as a van pulls
up to evacuate the wounded. The
soldiers again open fire
from the helicopter, killing more people. A crew member is heard saying,
“Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.” But that was not the end. Journalist Rick
Rowley reported
that a man who had crawled out of the van was
still alive when a tank drove over him, cutting him in half.

Marjorie
Cohn, who
teaches criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human
rights law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, describes multiple war crimes from this single video. First,
targeting and killing civilians who do not pose a threat violated the
Geneva Conventions. Second, when soldiers attacked the van attempting
to rescue the wounded they violated the Geneva Conventions, which allows
the rescue of wounded. Third, the tank rolling over the wounded
man, splitting him in two, is a war crime, and even if he were already
dead disrespecting a body violates the Geneva Conventions.

The “Collateral Murder” video
documents war crimes, according to this expert on human rights
law. When Manning saw these war crimes, what should he have done?
Should he have covered up the evidence of potential war crimes?
Should he have tried to go up the chain of command – a strategy that he had
already unsuccessfully tried? If Manning did what he is accused
of, he did the only thing that could stop these crimes from continuing.

Other documents Manning allegedly
provided to WikiLeaks involved the 2009 Granai
air strike in Afghanistan,
in which as many as 140 civilians, including women and children, were
killed in a U.S. attack. The
Australian
reported that the air strike resulted in “one of the highest civilian
death tolls from Western military action since foreign forces invaded
Afghanistan in 2001.” The
Afghan government has said
that around 140 civilians were killed, of whom
93 were children
– the youngest 8 days old – 25
were women, and
22 were adult males. The
U.S. military had said
that 20-30 civilians were killed along with 60-65 insurgents.

Allegedly, Manning released
hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, which, working with traditional
media outlets, has released a small percentage of them. He left
it to journalists to decide what was appropriate for release. The small
percentage of documents released show widespread and systemic abuses
in U.S. foreign policy and in the conduct of wars. WikiLeaks documents,
including the Iraq and Afghanistan
War Logs and the diplomatic cables, show the following:

These are a few examples among many. The documents published by
WikiLeaks, allegedly provided to them by Manning, are of critical
importance to understanding that U.S. foreign policy is not what
Americans are told. No doubt historians, human rights lawyers,
academics, and others will be reviewing these documents and reporting
in greater detail the systemic nature of the unethical and often
illegal behavior of the U.S. government. This already has the world looking
at the United States with new eyes.

Experience inside the U.S.
military turned a young man from Oklahoma who believed in America into
someone who doubted it. Manning believed in American freedom,
especially economic freedom, and believed the United States played a
positive role in the world. He wanted to serve his country. In doing
so he became someone who questioned the leadership of the nation, its
foreign policy, and its conduct of wars. He saw war crimes, violations
of law, and constant deception. After much soul searching he decided
that the quest for a more perfect union required him to share this information.

Justice Robert Jackson, during
his opening address at the Nuremberg trials, said: “If we can cultivate
in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner’s
dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something
toward making the peace more secure.” Bradley Manning joins in this
enlightened viewpoint and is working to make peace more secure and the
United States a better nation.

A mature American leadership, rather than prosecuting Manning, would
encourage an honest debate about U.S. foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson
warned that “oppressions are many” and that for the people to govern we
should “leave open … all the avenues to truth.” Manning has provided an
avenue to truth where we can look honestly at our government and
dramatically change direction. Enlightened leadership would renounce
blackmail, threats, and spying on foreign officials, as well as torture
and war.

Instead Manning is suffering
a fate Thomas Jefferson warned about: “Most codes extend their definitions
of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not
distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the
oppressions of the government.” Manning has been sitting in solitary
confinement for seven months awaiting trial. He is suffering this
fate for the betterment of the nation. People who care about the
United States and our impact on the world should stand with Bradley
and work to turn American foreign policy away from militarism and
toward working cooperatively with other nations for the advancement
of all.

201203367510 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fkevin-b-zeese%2F2011%2F01%2F10%2Fbradley-manning-and-the-rule-of-law%2FBradley+Manning+and+the+Rule+of+Law2011-01-11+06%3A00%3A05Kevin+B.+Zeesehttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012033675 to “Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law”

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antiwar.com, David Benfell, Iraq Solidarity News, John Ito and others. John Ito said: Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law http://dlvr.it/D4TgK #Uncategorized […]

Actually there is no character of americans as they are liers and decievers and killers.
There is proverb says" if you have lost money have lost something, if you have lost have lost somthing etc. but if you have lost your moral character or ethics then you have lost every thing this is what americans are?

u can wave flag, constitution, or geneva conventions all u want it won't protect u. and never as long as we labor under a supremacistic rule, such as the one in u.s.

u.s not being a nation but a miscegenation and ruled by one or two favorite ethnic groups, makes it easier to commit any crime against ifrahuman 'aliens'.

for years i have been writing posts in which i say to expect worsenings for 'alien' and domestic pop.
u.s had always been a lawless region; i.e. the regionals, aka americans, have lived under a diktat by the supremacists. more cld be said. tnx

Has his attorney filed a speedy trial motion? Has he filed a motion to dismiss? Is he going to?

A brief on the right to speedy trial was posted on Manning's attorney's web site on Jan. 3 entitled Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial next to a clock showing the exact amount of time of Bradley Manning's overly long pretrial detention.

A speedy trial motion has the most chance of success of freeing Bradley Manning. If you read the brief on the attorney's web site the predicate for a motion to dismiss is already established. Why doesn't the press cover this aspect of his detention which is unlawful now due to its protracted length under military and constitutional law?

The political, pretend christians[biblical harlots] and business leaders have no dignity and encouraged by the pretend christians do not know healthy shame thereby rely on unhealthy shame as a matter of behavior and use pride to replace dignity because they do not know dignity as they have none and 90% of the phony christians know only unhealthy shame. This institutionalization of unhealthy shame and replacing dignity with false pride makes unhealthy shame legitimate and the society has no dignity because the so called leaders don't know dignity.Nelson Mandel is a high profile model for dignity. It is the poor that have dignity in this world. To be rich and have dignity is no accomplishment, although only few wealthy have demonstrable dignity. Being poor and having dignity that's an accomplishment.

Very good points about Nuremberg principles, etc. However, the world knows exactly how the US operates, it is those who live in the US who do not know, do not understand, and do not care that the US empire is the largest law-breaking nation, biggest oppressor of human rights on the planet. And as a matter of fact, without looking through rose-colored glasses, let us all remember where our real "roots" come from. The "founding fathers" were white slave owning rich men who wanted to be free so they could rape, pillage and plunder the "new world" and it's indigenous peoples. It hasn't changed much. But the lies that they keep feeding the mass populous keep getting better and better. When we finally come out from under all the bullshit and realize what this country really stands for, then the world will truly be at peace.